12/13/2006 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

December 7, 2006 The discussion, comments and questions which followed included: 3. One resident commended City efforts to master plan, noted that the City is investing resources to allow changes to be made and therefore urged careful consideration before approving a plan. 4. Appreciation was expressed for the range of life cycle housing types included in the plan; would like to see some of them be affordable housing. 5. Several residents expressed concern about the impact of traffic on this neighborhood; while the County roads need to be improved, if they are too wide they will divide the neighborhood; trails and pedestrian improvements should be included to help maintain connectivity; 6. One resident asked about development standards; likes that the plan includes guidelines for design; lighting should be addressed so commercial development doesn't impact adjacent neighborhoods. 7. Questions were asked about the MUSA line — will it be expanded to include the entire study area? Again concerned expressed about the impact of new utilities on existing property owners (cost or assessments, disruption). 8. A Shoreview resident raised objections to the potential realignment of Ware Rd; instead they are proposing a cul -de -sac to terminate Ware Rd. and reduce traffic into the southern neighborhood. 9. One resident expressed appreciation for a capitalist society where property rights are respected, and so each property owner can decide whether to develop, or keep things as they are; but another expressed concern that the plan would limit his future land use. Staff noted that the comprehensive plan and existing zoning already limits land uses and future development. 10. One resident said a master plan was needed to obtain higher quality development, which this corner needs; another agreed that the intersection should be improved and the corner redeveloped, but disagreed with additional development in the study area. 11. There was a question raised about a moratorium; staff clarified that there is no moratorium on development in this area, but that development hasn't proceeded because of the lack of adequate utilities. 12. There was also a question raised about a "vacation notice ". Staff clarified this issue, which had to do with inspections and a question about whether an expanding auto storage area was extending over the property line (it isn't). 13. Property owners wanted to know when existing driveway accesses would be removed, and how and when the "backage road" (on the east side of Hodgson behind the commercial area) would be built. Staff replied that would be phased with development. 14. The Ware Rd corner property owner (and potential developer) would like to see that road moved into the commercial area, rather than acting as a divider between the commercial and residential areas. 15. Several residents expressed concern about the renovation of the 49 Club (construction trucks have been out front in recent days) and would support for eliminating that building and redeveloping the corner as the master plan shows. The meeting was concluded with encouragement to look at the boards and speak with the team, to submit written comments (see summary memo), and a reminder that the plan is scheduled to be at the next P & Z meeting fora public hearing on December 13, 2006. (end of memo) 2